Catholic Answers Participant provides a " VERY sad and telling quote from Martin Luther..."

Here's a recent offering from a participant at the Catholic Answers Forums in which the alleged "effects" of Luther's "revolt" against Rome are displayed in a despondent quote from Luther. In this first entry, I'm going to provide the documentation needed to find the context(s) of the quote being cited. In future entries, I'll provide the contexts.

Yesterday, 6:59 pm

total Catholic  Junior Member Join Date: February 22, 2014 Location: South Carolina Posts: 217 Religion: Catholic

VERY sad and telling quote from Martin Luther... ...as he begin to see the effects of his revolt against the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. “Every thing is reversed, the world grows every day the worse for this teaching; and the misery of it is, that men are nowadays more covetous, more hard-hearted, more corrupt, more licentious, and more wicked, than of old under the Papacy… Our evangels are now sevenfold more wicked than they were before. In proportion as we hear the gospel, we steal, lie, cheat, gorge, swill, and commit every crime. If one devil has been driven out of us, seven worse ones have taken their place, to judge from the conduct of princes, lords, nobles, burgesses, and peasants, their utterly shameless acts, and their disregard of God and of his menaces… Under the Papacy, men were charitable and gave freely; but now, under the gospel all almsgiving is at an end, everyone fleeces his neighbor, and each seeks to have all for himself. And the longer the gospel is preached, the deeper do men sink in avarice, pride, and ostention.” - Martin Luther Lutherans, we love you. Come home. You can read more: http://catholicism.org/the-devastati...nt-revolt.html

Documentation
What appears to be a dismal ranting paragraph from Luther on the failures of the Reformation is actually a few quotes strewn together using a complicated web of secondary sources going back to the mid-1800's. This is the standard operating procedure for many of Rome's defenders.

The first place to begin the investigation is by following the "You can read more" link over to the article, Some Causes and Consequences of the Protestant Revolt (March 5, 2012) by Br. David Mary, M.I.C.M., Tert. The author states,

Before going on to describe the Revolt in the rest of Europe, let us hear Luther himself comment on the moral results of his “glorious” reform: “Every thing is reversed, the world grows every day the worse for this teaching; and the misery of it is, that men are nowadays more covetous, more hard-hearted, more corrupt, more licentious, and more wicked, than of old under the Papacy… Our evangels are now sevenfold more wicked than they were before. In proportion as we hear the gospel, we steal, lie, cheat, gorge, swill, and commit every crime. If one devil has been driven out of us, seven worse ones have taken their place, to judge from the conduct of princes, lords, nobles, burgesses, and peasants, their utterly shameless acts, and their disregard of God and of his menaces… Under the Papacy, men were charitable and gave freely; but now, under the gospel all almsgiving is at an end, everyone fleeces his neighbor, and each seeks to have all for himself. And the longer the gospel is preached, the deeper do men sink in avarice, pride, and ostention.” 68 [68 Quoted by the German historian Döllinger from Luther’s writings near the end of his life. This extract can be seen in History of the Protestant Revolt , Vol. I, p. 260.]

The source cited (endnote #68) appears to be referring to an extract from Döllinger's History of the Protestant Revolt , Vol. I, p. 260. I was not familiar with Döllinger having written such a volume. Upon further investigation, Br. Mary's other endnotes also refer to The History of the Protestant Revolt in England and Ireland  by William Cobbett, and The History of the Protestant Reformation in Germany and Switzerland, and in England, Ireland, Scotland, the Netherlands, France, and Northern Europe , Vol. I, by M. J. Spalding. The quote in question appears to come from Pages 259 - 260 of the later volume, not Döllinger:

We here subjoin an analysis of the testimony furnished by the reformers themselves, according to the learned and accurate Döllinger, on the practical moral results of their teachings, as witnessed by themselves in their own times. If some of these testimonies are similar to those already given, the confirmation is still more forcible. As will be seen, the analysis is sufficiently thorough and searching, and its length will be pardoned to the great interest of the subject*

 *We take this excellent summary from the Dublin Review for September, 1848, which gives also the proper references to Döllinger's German work.

THE MORAL RESULTS OF THE REFORMATION. "Upon this head, few will be disposed to call in question the authority of our first evidence, the father of the Reformation himself With all his partiality for the child of his own labors, Luther is forced to admit, that it were no wonder if his beloved Germany 'were sunk in the earth, or utterly overthrown by the Turks and Tartars, by reason of the hellish and damnable forgetfulness and contempt of God's grace which the people manifest; nay, that the wonder is, that the earth does not refuse to bear them, and the sun to shine upon them any longer.' He doubts 'whether it should any longer be called a world, and not rather an abyss of all evils, wherewith those sodomites afflict his soul and his eyes both day and night' 'Every thing is reversed,' he laments, 'the world grows every day the worse for this teaching; and the misery of it is, that men are nowadays more covetous, more hard-hearted, more corrupt, more licentious, and more wicked, than of old under the Papacy.' 'Our evangelicals,' he avows, 'are now sevenfold more wicked than they were before. In proportion as we hear the gospel, we steal, lie, cheat, gorge, swill, and commit every crime. If one devil has been driven out of us, seven worse ones have taken their place, to judge from the conduct of princes, lords, nobles, burgesses, and peasants, their utterly shameless acts, and their disregard of God and of his menaces.' 'Under the Papacy, men were charitable and gave freely; but now, under the gospel, all almsgiving is at an end, every one fleeces his neighbor, and each seeks to have all for himself. And the longer the gospel is preached, the deeper do men sink in avarice, pride, and ostentation.' So utterly, too, does he despair of the improvement of this generation of his disciples, that he 'often wishes that Oxese filthy swine-bellies were back again under the tyranny of the Pope, for it is impossible that a race so savage, such a "people of Gomorrha," could be ruled by the peaceful consolations of the gospel.'

So, right off the bat, Rome's defender on the Catholic Answers forums cited a cut-and-paste from a web article that got the author and the title wrong of the book being cited. But it gets more complicated. The author of the book being cited (M.J. Spalding) actually didn't use one of Luther's writings, but rather took the information from the Dublin Review September, 1848 from their article, The Reformation as Described by the Reformers (the quote in question begins on page 216). The Dublin Review notes that it isn't one quote, but rather at least three from a German source (quotes they translated into English), Döllinger's Die Reformation: Ihre innere Entwicklung und ihre Wirkungen vol. 1 (The Reformation: It's Interior Development and Effects, 3 vols. 1846-1848). The Dublin Review provides three references to  Döllinger's Die Reformation: pp. 297, 285, 327. Broken up, the quotes are said to refer to the following from Döllinger:

1. Every thing is reversed, the world grows every day the worse for this teaching; and the misery of it is, that men are nowadays more covetous, more hard-hearted, more corrupt, more licentious, and more wicked, than of old under the Papacy… (p. 297)

2. Our evangels are now sevenfold more wicked than they were before. In proportion as we hear the gospel, we steal, lie, cheat, gorge, swill, and commit every crime. If one devil has been driven out of us, seven worse ones have taken their place, to judge from the conduct of princes, lords, nobles, burgesses, and peasants, their utterly shameless acts, and their disregard of God and of his menaces… (p.285)

3. Under the Papacy, men were charitable and gave freely; but now, under the gospel all almsgiving is at an end, everyone fleeces his neighbor, and each seeks to have all for himself. And the longer the gospel is preached, the deeper do men sink in avarice, pride, and ostention. (p.327)

Now using the references from the Dublin Review to Döllinger, we can begin to try to find the actual contexts to from Luther's writings by seeing what Döllinger was citing. For the first quote from Döllinger's Die Reformation on page 297, the reference appears to be  either to  to Walch 2680 (in which Döllinger gave a rather loose translation of Luther's comments on Galatians 5:13) or, it could be to Hauspostille Walch XIII.19. If this is the reference, it would be Luther's sermon on Matthew 21:1-9. Or, the Dublin review may have used a mixture of both. The second quote from page 285 appears to be a reference to Walch III, 2727. The quote comes from Luther's comments on Deuteronomy 9:25.  The third quote refers to Walsh hauspostil XIII 1572, 1584. These are references to Luther's House Postil sermon on Luke 16:19-31.

Conclusion
That's right: this one-paragraph quote from Luther is actually three quotes from three different sources, hence three different contexts.

This particular exercise of tedium took a number of hours to unravel. It always amazes me how one seemingly simple paragraph can be put together in such a haphazard "Frankenstein's monster" way. Rather than simply reading Luther, many of Rome's defenders would rather cut-and-paste snippets from research dating back centuries. And even visiting those old texts revealed that some of Rome's defenders were cutting and pasting way back when.  The simple thing to remember is not to take anything Rome's defenders post at face value. More often than not when it comes to these Reformation related quotes, they've never actually done the work to actually read the original contexts of what they post. Perhaps it's laziness, or perhaps it's misguided zeal, or perhaps in some cases it's a little bit of both. The participant from Catholic Answers ends with, "Lutherans, we love you. Come home." Love is not demonstrated by posting propaganda, Wherever "home" is, it certainly isn't where this person from Catholic Answers thinks it is.

Addendum
I did leave a response at Catholic Answers, and of course, when at Catholic Answers, always save a copy of what you post:

Jan 14, '16, 3:44 pm

TertiumQuid  Regular Member   Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 895 Religion: Reformed

Re: VERY sad and telling quote from Martin Luther... Quote: Originally Posted by total Catholic  You can read more: http://catholicism.org/the-devastati...nt-revolt.html So I read more to see the reference as to where Luther said this. The link goes over to the article,Some Causes and Consequences of the Protestant Revolt by Br. David Mary, M.I.C.M., Tert. The source cited by Br, David Mary appears to be Döllinger's History of the Protestant Revolt , Vol. I, p. 260. I was not familiar with Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger having written such a volume. What's usually cited by is Döllinger's A History of the Church series. Thinking that this was the source meant, I checked vol. 1 p. 260, but the quote was not there. A quick Google search though did come upon The History of the Protestant Reformation Vol. 1 by M.J. Spalding. Page 260 has the quote being cited. A surface reading of Br, David Mary's documentation appears he got the author wrong, but it's more likely his was a poorly worded footnote. He did though get the title of the book wrong, changing "Reformation" to "Revolt." The author of the book being cited (M.J. Spalding) admits he didn't get the quotes from Luther, but rather took the information from the Dublin Review for September, 1848. The Dublin review took the quotes from Döllinger. It appears there are at least three different quotes being put together to form the paragraph as it's being cited. This might sound like nitpicking, but those were the hoops I had to jump through to see where Luther said what he is purported to have said. Luther wasn't postmillennial. While he was discouraged that the world seemed to be getting worse, his eschatological expectation can be traced back even to the early days of his Reformation work. For Luther, it was the end of the world. Things were indeed going to get worse. For him, he felt the Gospel was going to be fought against by the Devil with all his might. The true church was a tiny flock in a battle against the world, the flesh, and the Devil. He hoped the people would improve with the preaching of the Gospel, he often admitted he knew things were going to get worse because of the Gospel. One of the recent volumes of Luther's works addresses this very issue (LW 58:xx-xxii). It is well worth tracking down. They say in part, "The Reformation, as Luther understands it at the end of his life, is neither an accomplished event nor a step along the progressive way to the full purification of the Church, but it is a continual struggle, carried out through the preaching of the Law and the Gospel, to be renewed from generation to generation until the Last Day."

Luther: We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school [Wittenberg]

This is a follow-up to my earlier critique of  Shoebat's Martin Luther- The Bare Truth Unfolded. Their recent hit piece includes some Luther quotes I've never gone into detail on or have never covered. For instance, they state the following in regard to Luther's view of James:

If there was any book in the New Testament that was more subject to attack by Martin Luther it was none other than the Epistle of James. This was simply because Luther had become an antinomian and thus wanted an easy salvation that was devoid of repentance in accordance with faith. Sounds like most of Protestantism today, doesn’t it? Let us see what his actual words are regarding the Epistle of James: “We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school [Wittenberg], for it doesn’t amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning. I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any.” (Lecture at Wittenberg, 54, 424-425) For Luther to blasphemously accredit the Blessed Apostle James as an unbelieving Jew who had no contact with Christianity is laughable to say the least and blasphemous at worst! No wonder we have in a number of Protestant churches and theological colleges, people who have no reverence for anything sacred and also who attack our Lord Jesus Christ and His Blessed Apostles!

Over the years, I've put together a number of posts on Luther's view of James. For example, see Luther's "Epistle of Straw" Comment or  Six Points On Luther’s “Epistle of Straw. I've only mentioned this Luther comment cited by Shoebat.com in passing.

Documentation
Shoebat.com cites "Lecture at Wittenberg, 54, 424-425."  Someone coming across this quote probably pictures Luther lecturing to his students, and the quote is part of a documented lecture.  The simple fact is that neither the documentation nor the context assert this. Shoebat.com is assuming it. Nor does Shoebat.com explain what "54, 424-425" refers to. Is volume 54 of whatever it is they're citing entitled, "Lecture at Wittenberg" or is it a document from some unnamed 54th source?  Well, "54" refers to Luther's Works, vol. 54, English edition (often referenced as "LW"). Shoebat.com is in error when they state, "Let us see what his actual words are regarding the Epistle of James." Vol. 54 is a collection of Luther's Table Talk utterances. The Table Talk is a collection of second hand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death, there is no proof they are his "actual words." Since the statements contained therein are purported to have been made by Luther, they should serve more as corroborating second-hand testimony to something Luther is certain to have written or said.


Context
No. 5443: Luther Has Low Opinion of Epistle of James Summer or Fall, 1542 
“We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school, for it doesn’t amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning [Jas. 1:1; 2:1]. I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any. Since he heard that Christians place great weight on faith in Christ, he thought, ‘Wait a moment! I’ll oppose them and urge works alone.’ This he did. He wrote not a word about the suffering and resurrection of Christ, although this is what all the apostles preached about. Besides, there’s no order or method in the epistle. Now he discusses clothing and then he writes about wrath and is constantly shifting from one to the other. He presents a comparison: ‘As the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead’ [Jas. 2:26]. O Mary, mother of God! What a terrible comparison that is! James compares faith with the body when he should rather have compared faith with the soul! The ancients recognized this, too, and therefore they didn’t acknowledge this letter as one of the catholic epistles.” [Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 54: Table Talk. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, and H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 54, pp. 424–425). Philadelphia: Fortress Press].

Analysis
This 1542 Table Talk utterance does reflect Luther's earlier view of James- that he was not an apostle, but rather a later Christian. His earlier preface to James (1522) states, "Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle" (LW 35:395). In the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520) Luther states, "[M]any assert with much probability that this epistle is not by James the apostle, and that it is not worthy of an apostolic spirit; although, whoever was its author, it has come to be regarded as authoritative" (LW 36:118). The editors of LW 35 point out that the "ancients" Luther probably had in mind were Eusebius and Jerome (LW 35:395, fn 47). The editors likewise posit that the "many" may have included Luther's Roman Catholic contemporaries, Desiderius Erasmus and Cardinal Cajetan. (LW 36:118, fn. 213). Interestingly, The New Catholic Answer Bible (using the NAB) states, "The person to whom this letter is ascribed can scarcely be one of the two members of the Twelve who bore the name James, for he is not identified as an apostle but only as a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" (p. 1341). They also reference the fact that some scholars hold "James is a pseudonymous work of a later period" (p. 1341-1342).

 As to whether or not Luther tried to have James thrown out of the Wittenberg school, I'm not aware of any actual writings from Luther in which he wrote this. It is true though that Luther was bothered by the polemical Roman Catholic use of James throughout his career, so it wouldn't be much of stretch to believe he made this rhetorical comment.

The phrase "some Jew"  sometimes get highlighted as an antisemitic slur. See for instance the debate between Bill Rutland (Roman Catholic) and Wayne Greeson (Protestant): "Is Roman Catholic Tradition Our Authority For Faith And Doctrine."Rutland says,

The truth is…Martin Luther took books out of the Bible. Martin Luther using a Jewish Council convened in 90 A.D. called the Council of Jamnia removed the dueterocanonicals from the Old Testament. Not only did he do that but he even removed the Book of James from the New Testament calling it an ‘epistle of straw’ and claiming that some evil Jew had written it to lead Christians astray and it was put back in after the cajoling of the other Reformers (p.31).

The comments about works are also consistent with Luther's earlier views, but Shoebat.com is in blatant error when they say "Luther had become an antinomian" because he "wanted an easy salvation that was devoid of repentance in accordance with faith." See my detailed link here, or scroll through my compilation of statements from Luther on faith and works. Luther taught a life under the cross, which is a life of discipleship of following after Christ. Our crosses though, do not save. They serve the neighbor. We are called to be neighbor to those around us. Detractors often selectively quote Luther’s opinion of James. Most often cited are only those comments that express negativity. If one takes the times to actually read Luther’s popular preface comments about James, he praises it and considers it a "good book" "because it sets up no doctrine of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God."

The comments about "no order or method in the epistle" are also consistent with Luther's earlier views.  His earlier Preface to James states, "he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper" (LW 35:397).  What Luther refers to as the unnatural order of the book, The New Catholic Answer Bible says in a more polished way:

From the viewpoint of its literary form, James is a letter only in the most conventional sense; it has none of the characteristic features of a real letter except the address. It belongs rather to the genre of parenesis or exhortation and is concerned almost exclusively with ethical conduct. It therefore falls within the tradition of Jewish wisdom literature, such as can be found in the Old Testament (Proverbs, Sirach) and in the extracanonical Jewish literature (Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Books of Enoch, the Manual of Discipline found at Qumran). More specifically, it consists of sequences of didactic proverbs, comparable to Tb 4:5–19, to many passages in Sirach, and to sequences of sayings in the synoptic gospels. Numerous passages in James treat of subjects that also appear in the synoptic sayings of Jesus, especially in Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount, but the correspondences are too general to establish any literary dependence. James represents a type of early Christianity that emphasized sound teaching and responsible moral behavior. Ethical norms are derived not primarily from christology, as in Paul, but from a concept of salvation that involves conversion, baptism, forgiveness of sin, and expectation of judgment (Jas 1:17; 4:12) (p.1341).

Conclusion
So this Table Talk comment could be reflective of Luther's lifelong doubt about the canonicity of James. There were occasions though throughout his career that he referenced James, and not in a derogatory manner. Such citations are not proof that he changed his mind on the canonicty of James, but they are proof that Shoebat.com is exaggerating when they state, "If there was any book in the New Testament that was more subject to attack by Martin Luther it was none other than the Epistle of James."

At times it does appear Luther accepted James as an apostle and his book as canonical. For instance, in 1536 Luther preached on James 1:16-21. It is curious that in the sermon, Luther refers to James as “the apostle,” and it is also interesting that he does discuss the gospel and the Resurrection. Luther was also aware of the common protestant harmonization of Paul and James, and even at times offered it himself:

This is what St. James means when his says in his Epistle, 2:26: ‘Faith without works is dead.’ That is, as the works do not follow, it is a sure sign that there is no faith there; but only an empty thought and dream, which they falsely call faith. [The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 2:2 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), p. 308].

For the entire context of this sermon, see this link.

Throughout their article, it was not entirely clear that Shoebat.com is a blatant defender of Rome and all things Roman Catholic. If they are, they would be guilty of the same sort of double standard that the typical defenders of Rome are.  Erasmus, Luther, and Cajetan formed their opinions on the canon previous to the Council of Trent’s canon declaration. They had the liberty to speculate within the Roman theological tradition. Even Luther did not mind if people disagreed with him on James: "Therefore I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him" (LW 35:397).

Questions for Walid Shoebat

Walid Shoebat (and other authors at his web-site) have been very critical of Protestantism and Luther (and Calvin) in recent years (as James Swan's posts demonstrate).

The Shoebats (both Walid and Theodore) has also had a few run-ins with Dr. White also in the past few years.

Some of the articles and some of the emphasis is right to expose the problems with violent and Jihadist/terrorist Islam and political correctness.  Also, we should pray for the ancient churches communities (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Oriental Orthodox) and Christians and other groups such as the Yezidis who are being persecuted and slaughered by ISIS.   The Shoebats desire for justice for those communities is a good one.

He does seem to have converted to Roman Catholicism, although that is not completely clear to me either. He speaks well of the crusades, and emphasizes military action again Muslims, etc. 

Shoebat is very Pro-Israel and was (and still is, it seems, though I don't know for sure) very into Pre-tribulational and Pre-millennial theology and prophesy and Israel coming back as a nation in 1948 as a fulfillment of prophesy.

Years ago, (sometime between 1995-2000 ?), we exchanged a few emails, as we were on an email group of people doing ministry with Muslims, he got really upset with me (on an email group of people in ministry to Muslims), because I questioned his Pre-trib and pre-Millennial stuff that was always such an overemphasis on modern 1948 Zionism and Israel, etc. -  he was very similar to  Hal Lindsay, John Hagee, and Jack Van Impe type of emphasis. He later either left the email group or was kicked out of the email group. (?)

To be clear, I support Israel's right to exist and defend herself against Islamic terrorism, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the PLO.  But that is an issue of justice and fairness, (since it was the Ottoman Turks who were the political entity over Palestine for about 500 years, and they were justly punished after 1918 because of their role in joining Germany in World War 1 (so the argument that Palestine was a formal country is wrong); and the Muslims were always attacking first, and loosing more territory since 1948; and the fact that the Muslims never accepted Israel's right to exist, even the 1948 borders were rejected wholeheartedly by the Muslim world at the time.  

Hamas has quotes from the Hadith in it's charter that speak of 
"there is a Jew behind the rock and tree; come and kill the Jews"  and "fight the Jews until the day of 
resurrection". 

See here also.

 That (support for Israel)  is not an issue of whether 1948 was a fulfillment of prophesy or whether the OT land promises to Israel are still valid.   Galatians 4:26, Revelation 21-22; Hebrews chapter 4 and Hebrews 11:10; 11:16 and 12:22-23; and 13:14 seem to indicate the OT land promises were fulfilled in Christ.  (with Galatians 3:16 )  I still struggle between 2 views of the Millennium in Eschatology: is it "Historic Pre-Millennialism" (post-tribulational rapture) or A-millenialism, although I do lean toward an A-millennial view, with a somewhat positive view of much of what partial-preterism says.  

It is still hard for me to tell definitely if Walid is just supporting the militaristic history of the past of Romanism - Crusades, etc. vs. Islam, or if he really converted to Roman Catholicism (though now that I am looking more closely at his articles, it does seem he has converted.) see his article "Them Damned Catholics" at his website.   But that was in 2013; since that time, there are many more articles supporting Roman Catholicism that I have discovered since looking more at this site.  Wow.  I have not had time to digest these, and just noticed them.  It seems more and more clear that he has converted to Roman Catholicism.  Shoebat defends icons, statues, and the whole incarnational theological justification for bowing down to and venerating icons and statues.  (Sept. 20, 2015) And he defends Russia, the Orthodox church, and Putin too.   Wow.  The more I read, the more I am seeing this, Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, militancy, mixed with end-times events prophesy stuff.

Walid Shoebat - did you convert to Roman Catholicism?  Are you a traditional Roman Catholic?  (one who wants the Tridentide Latin Mass restored to official and obligatory and either considers the Popes after Pius XII anti-Popes or weak or hold to the Sedevacantist position.)    The more I look and read more at your site, the more it seems to indicate that you have converted to the more Traditional strain of Roman Catholicism.

His pre-trib. pre-Millennialism and pro-1948 Israel as fulfillment of prophesy would seem to conflict with eschatological views of Roman Catholicism and the small Middle Eastern Churches that go back to earlier more ancient churches of Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy (Coptic and other Mia-physite / Monophysite churches/ rejection of the Chalcedonian Council and Creed of 451 AD) and Roman Catholicism. (back to 500s - 600s and beyond to the modern era).

Walid, are you still Pre-trib and Pre-Millennial?  and if so, how does that fit with the Roman Catholic Church, which is more A-millennial?

If you look at his web-site, in a 2012 interview with Pat Robertson (! Charismatic, CBN - 700 Club - TV personality, but certainly not pro-Roman Catholic), he gives a fairly in-depth analysis of the connections of key people with the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic terrorism, the history and fall of the Caliphate in 1924, and desire for Muslims to re-establish the Caliphate issues and the Sunni - Shiite connections - Shoebat even predicts that Iran will attack Saudi Arabia and destroy it in the near future.   






Maybe it was sometime after 2012 that he moved more toward Roman Catholicism. That (the prediction that Iran will attack Saudi Arabia) caught my eye, because of the recent tensions between Iran and Saudi going on right now.   

See also the Wikipedia article on the history of Saudi and Iran relations and tensions.

Walid is more credible than Ergun Caner, that is for sure, as he truly does speak Arabic and was born in Palestine-Israel, and Walid is a former Muslim, who was an Evangelical for a while; and now it seems he is Roman Catholic. 

Walid's Arabic and knowledge of individual leaders in the world of Islam and Islamic terrorism seem very credible;

although his claim of being a former terrorist has some doubts and wholes in it, 

and his stuff on the bism-illa (بسم الله ) (In the name of Allah) as the sign of Anti-Christ and 666 is goofy. 

I think Shoebat is basically right in understanding the connections between the Muslim Brotherhood and other Jihadist groups (Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS), the desire for the restoration of the Caliphate, and connections to political Muslims groups in the USA such as CAIR and the Muslim Student Associations on US University campuses.  The founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan Al Banna, inspired Sayeed Qutb, who inspired Osama Ben Laden and Ayman Al Zawahiri (the current leader of Al Qaeda) and Hamas in Palestine/Israel.  Hezbollah in Lebanon is the Shiite version of Islamic Terror against the modern state of Israel. (similar to the Sunni Hamas group.)

Addendum:
After watching the interview that Walid Shoebat did with Pat Robertson again, I noticed several things.  1.  Walid was wrong about Egypt (After the Arab Spring of 2011-2012 in Egypt, Hosni Mubarak was taken down from power, and the Muslim Brotherhood was in charge through Muhammad Morsi's government for a while(June 2012-July 2013), but the people and General Al Sisi rose up and did not want them in charge.)  and 2.  he was making lots of predictions about the Islamic world and tying in Bible passages from Isaiah and Jeremiah (most of which had to do with the era of Assyria, Egypt, and Babylon Geo-politics and wars of that time period.)  Elam is not all of Iran/Persia, although there is a small province in Iran in the south, near Iraq named Elam.   The Elamites were more of Semitic group more closely related to the Arabs in the south of Iraq, but they no longer exist today.  The Persians later conquer Elam.  (Cyrus - 536 BC and forward).   Then later, Islamic conquests (632 AD to 1600s) over the past 1400 years has caused many of the Biblical peoples and boundaries to be changed.  There are Arabs in the south of Iran, but there are also lots of Persians and there is lots of ethnic mix.  I know several Iranians who have an Arab father and Iranian mother, and vice versa, and many Iranians who are Turkish in their ethnic roots.   Isaiah 19:1 and following seems to have been about God judging Egypt through Assyria (the Lord was judging Israel by Assyrian attacks from 738 BC (Tiglath-Pileser) -725-722 (Shalmanesar and Sargon) BC and beyond - trying to take Judah and the south - 701 BC - Sennacherib).  Assyria conquered Egypt in 670 BC (in between the time that Assyria conqured Israel, the Northern Kingdom, and Babylon conquered Judah, the Southern Kingdom, from 606-586 BC - G. W. Crogan, in his commentary on Isaiah, writes, "The fierce king of verse 4 has been variously identified, but there can be little doubt that the most appropriate application is to Ear-shaddon, king of Assyria, who subdued Egypt in 670 BC." (page 126, Commentary on Isaiah, in The Expositors Bible Commentary, volume 6 (Isaiah-Ezekiel), Zondervan, 1986).  Later, Babylonian invasions  -Babylon conquered Israel and destroyed the temple.  (605-586 BC)  Isaiah 19:1 - "The LORD rides on a cloud, coming to Egypt to destroy the idols of Egypt".  The context was the paganism in Egypt at the time and that God, by allowing Assyria to conquer Egypt in 670 BC; and later, Babylon to invade and conquer Judah, the southern kingdom.  Another commentary mentions Persia conquering Egypt for a while in the 500s-300s BC.  God's judgement is described as "riding on a cloud".  That is one of the big concepts that Partial- Preterists use to show that God "came" in judgment on Israel in 70 AD by sovereignly causing the Romans to attack and destroy the temple in Jerusalem.

Basic Biblical doctrine

The recent video put out by Pope Francis is a contradiction to basic Biblical doctrine, that Christ is the only way of salvation and the only way to reach God.
John 14:6
Acts 4:12
Romans 10:13-15
John 3:18

A Roman Catholic may say something like, "the Pope actually never directly contradicts those verses; he is just saying we should talk and dialogue with one another, with people from other religions, and we should consider all people "children of God"; and they are sincerely seeking for God and they "believe in love" also.  Turretinfan is correct about the proper understanding of "Children of God" ; yet the Roman apologists would probably say that the Pope means that we are all children of God in the sense of nature and creation - "brothers and sisters in humanity".  He should make that clear, if he wants to preach truth and the gospel with other people of other religions.

The failure to preach the gospel and speak the truth in this context is a failure of basic responsibilities of a pastor/elder/overseer (bishop).  He (and the doctrine of the Papal office) claims to be "the bishop over all bishops", and this is a massive failure of duty.

We can still have respectful dialogue with other religions, but we need to preach the gospel (2 Timothy 4:1-7), be involved in Christian apologetics and speak it with gentleness and respect ( 1 Peter 3:15), speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15-16), and defend the faith once for all delivered to the saints.  (Jude 3)  But the Roman Church officially rejected justification by faith alone at Trent (1545-1563) and has been adding more and more traditions of man (Mark 7; Matthew 15; Colossians 2:8) to their dogmas.

The video gives the impression that Buddhism, Judaism, and Islam are equally valid roads to God and understanding of what true love is.  The plastic baby doll Jesus as representing Christianity is typical Roman Catholic external physical emphasis that is crude and gaudy and comes across, when RCs stand before it and pray and worship, - it comes across as idolatry.  As does praying to Mary.

If post Vatican 2 theology is wrong (and it certainly seems to contradict previous RC theology, especially in the official Catechism of the Catholic Church, # 841 (Muslims worship the same God as Christians) and 847 (atheists  and pagans who have never heard of Christ can be saved), then this is another step in showing why there are the "Traditional" Roman Catholics, the "Rad-Trad" Roman Catholics and Sedevacantists, and the whole RC claim of unity is an empty promise.  And it also shows that Papal infallibility is wrong.




As John Bugay has commented on this video also, the Pope is channeling the classic liberalism of "Adolph Von Harnack"

Luther on Revelation: "I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it."

The following link popped up a few weeks ago: Martin Luther- The Bare Truth Unfolded. The hosting website is Shoebat.com, and, as far as I can tell, is some sort of Anti-Islam pro-Roman Catholic website. From time to time they put up articles blaming Luther for the evils of the world (see the Beggars All archives). This article is similar to their previous offerings. Their recent hit piece includes some Luther quotes I've never gone into detail on or have never covered. For instance, they state the following:

Denial of the authenticity of the Apocalypse/Revelation

This will surprise many of the dear Protestant Christians who hold to a firm belief in the Holy Scriptures. In fact, as a fellow Christian, I wish to extend my sympathies to such. However, facts are that the very founder of the Protestant Reformation did not have any reverence for the Holy Scripture, especially when it clashed with his subjective thinking. Before we consider this, let us consider the warning by the Blessed Apostle St. John in Revelation 22:18, 19: “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecies of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” However, we find that Martin Luther had the gall to attack even any belief in the very Apocalypse itself as inspired of God. Let us consider this quote by Martin Luther:

“to my mind, it [the book of the Apocalypse/Revelation] bears upon it no marks of an apostolic or prophetic character… Everyone may form his own judgment of this book; as for myself, I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it.”

(Sammtliche Werke, 63, pp 169-170, ‘The Facts About Luther’, O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p 203)

Documentation
It's within the realm of possibility that Shoebat.com didn't actually take this quote from where it purportedly came from. The form of the quote is almost identical to its use in the Luther, Exposing the Myth webpage (see my extended review of this link). If this was the source used, Shoebat.com simply added one word, "Revelation."  :

Luther teaches: "To my mind it (the book of the Apocalypse) bears upon it no marks of an apostolic or prophetic character... Everyone may form his own judgment of this book; as for myself, I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it."[61]  Sammtliche Werke, 63, pp. 169-170, 'The Facts About Luther,' O'Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 203.

The similarity is striking. Regardless of whether or not this was simply a typical cut-and-paste, Shoebat.com cites "Sammtliche Werke, 63, pp 169-170, ‘The Facts About Luther’, O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p 203)." They at least admit to taking the quote from a secondary source, Patrick O'Hare's, The Facts About Luther (Tan edition).I've mentioned this book often throughout the years (it has been a perpetual source of propaganda for Rome's defenders). On page 203 (page 208 in the 1916 edition), Father O'Hare states,

"There are many things objectionable in this book," he says of the Apocalypse; "to my mind it bears upon it no marks of an apostolic or prophetic character. . . .Every one may form his own judgment of this book; as for myself, I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it." (Sammtliche Werke [Collected Works], 63, 169-170.) At the present day and for a long time previously, the Lutherans, ashamed of these excesses, have replaced the two Epistles and the Apocalypse in the Canon of the Sacred Scriptures.

O'Hare cites "Sammtliche Werke [Collected Works], 63, 169-170." These pages can be found here.

This reference is to Luther's Preface to the Revelation of Saint John (1522). It was included in his translation of the New Testament between 1522 to 1527. The preface was rewritten in 1530 and subsequent editions of Luther's Bible use the 1530 rewrite. An English translation was included in The Works of Martin Luther Volume Six [(Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1932), p. 488-489] (pdf) and also in LW 35 398-399. An English translation of the 1530 rewrite can also be found in The Works of Martin Luther Volume Six [(Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1932), p. 479-488] (pdf).

It's highly likely Father O'Hare did not actually translate this material into English, but rather used a secondary source.  There were English sources previous to O'Hare that used a similar quote. O'Hare definitely utilized John Alzog, so he may be presenting an edited version of Alzog's similar Luther quote (O'Hare actually cites Alzog only a few paragraphs later). If this basic outline of Shoebat.com's documentation is correct, it typifies how many of Rome's defenders do research in regard to Luther- both then and now.

Context
The Works of Martin Luther Volume Six [(Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1932), p. 488-489] (pdf)

About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own ideas, and would bind no man to my opinion or judgment; I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and this makes me hold it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. First and foremost, the Apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear, plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the Gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak of Christ and His deeds without figures and visions; but there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so out and out with visions and figures. And so I think of it almost as I do of the Fourth Book of Esdras, and can nohow detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.

Moreover, he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly, — more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important, — and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will deal likewise with him. Again, they are to be blessed who keep what is written therein; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. It is just the same as if we had it not, and there are many far better books for us to keep. Many of the fathers, too, rejected this book of old, though St. Jerome, to be sure, praises it highly and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words; though he cannot prove this at all, and his praise is, at many points, too mild.

Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit gives him to think. My spirit cannot fit itself into this book. There is one sufficient reason for me not to think highly of it,-Christ is not taught or known in it; but to teach Christ is the thing which an apostle is bound, above all else, to do, as He says in Acts 1:8, “Ye shall be my witnesses.” Therefore I stick to the books which give me Christ, clearly and purely,

Conclusion
From the aspect of bare tedium, Shoebat.com's Luther quote consists of three sentences sifted out of three paragraphs, and those three sentences aren't exactly in the order in which the context presents them. Giving whoever translated this the benefit of the doubt, it may have been translated loosely. From the aspect of tedious consistency, I doubt that Shoebat.com actually has gone after those whom Luther refers to above, "Many of the fathers, too, rejected this book of old." The editors of Luther's Works state,

The canonicity of Revelation was disputed by Marcion, Caius of Rome, Dionysius of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, and the Synod of Laodicea in A.D. 360, though it was accepted by others as Eusebius reports. Cf. p. 400, n. 63. Erasmus had noted in connection with chapter 4 that the Greeks regarded the book as apocryphal. WA, DB 7, 646, n. 22. (LW 35:399).

Shoebat.com goes on to say that "No serious minded Christian who has the new birth from above, will ever question the authenticity of any book of the Holy Scripture, most especially the New Testament. By the words of Holy Scripture, Luther has brought damnation upon himself and this should serve as a warning to others." One wonders how Shoebat.com reads church history. It appears Cardinal Cajetan and Desiderius Erasmus were not Christians either.

From the aspect of tedious fairness, Luther above states,"Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit gives him to think." In other words, Luther didn't really care if anyone agreed with him on this. In fact, Luther's attitude toward Revelation is sparse in writings previous to 1530 (when this was written).  

Now those are the tedious reasons why Shoebat.com didn't do a fair job in presenting this Luther quote. The essential blunder though is not doing any further research about Luther's prefaces. As mentioned above,  this preface to Revelation was included in his translation of the New Testament between 1522 to 1527, but was then rewritten in 1530, and subsequent editions of Luther's Bible use the 1530 rewrite. The rewrite is hardly ever referred to within anti-Luther polemics. John Warwick Montgomery points out,

Luther’s short and extremely negative Preface to the Revelation of St. John was completely dropped after 1522, and the Reformer replaced it with a long and entirely commendatory Preface (1530). Because “some of the ancient fathers held the opinion that it was not the work of St. John the apostle,” Luther leaves the authorship question open, but asserts that he can no longer “let the book alone,” for “we see, in this book, that through and above all plagues and beasts and evil angels Christ is with His saints, and wins the victory at last.” In his original, 1532 Preface to Ezekiel, Luther made a cross-reference to the Revelation of St. John with no hint of criticism; in his later, much fuller Preface to Ezekiel, he concludes on the note that if one wishes to go into prophetic study, more deeply, “the Revelation of John can also help.” [John Warwick Montgomery, “Lessons From Luther On The Inerrancy Of Holy Writ’s,” Westminster Theological Journal Volume 36, 295.]

In the revised preface, Luther states there are different types of prophecy in Christendom. The book of Revelation is of the kind that foretells things to come. He states,

The third type does it without either words or interpretations, exclusively with images and figures, like this book of Revelation and like the dreams, visions, and images that many holy people have had from the Holy Spirit—as Peter in Acts 2[:17] preaches from Joel [2:28], “Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.” (LW 35:400)

Luther then goes on to give a basic interpretation of the text, applying it to his times. He concludes:

With this kind of an interpretation we can profit by this book and make good use of it. First, for our comfort! We can rest assured that neither force nor lies, neither wisdom nor holiness, neither tribulation nor suffering shall suppress Christendom, but it will gain the victory and conquer at last. Second, for our warning! [We can be on guard] against the great, perilous, and manifold offense that inflicts itself upon Christendom. Because these mighty and imposing powers are to fight against Christendom, and it is to be deprived of outward shape and concealed under so many tribulations and heresies and other faults, is impossible for the natural reason to recognize Christendom. On the contrary, natural reason falls away and takes offense. It calls that “the Christian Church” which is really the worst enemy of the Christian Church. Similarly, it calls those persons damned heretics who are really the true Christian Church. This has happened before, under the papacy, under Mohammed, indeed with all the heretics. Thus they lose this article [of the Creed], “I believe in the holy Christian Church.” [LW 35:409-410]

As should be obvious, Shoebat.com's presentation of church history and the interpretation of documents is dubious. I've mentioned this before: The goal of going through particular quotes is not to defend Luther as a Protestant saint. I see the study of any person in church history as an exercise in the love of God and neighbor. How do I love my neighbor in the study of church history? There probably are many ways, but the one that applies here is in my words. If I bear false witness against my neighbor, even if he's been dead for hundreds of years, I am not loving him. Certainly Rome's defenders can challenge or critisize Luther, but they should at least do so so fairly and accurately.

Addendum
"By 1529/30, however, Luther came to have a much more favorable attitude toward the Apocalypse, as we have also noted. This new outlook toward the book of Revelation most probably originated in Luther's concern over the same situation that led to his translation of, and comment on, the book of Daniel, prepared in the same year. By now Luther was willing to acknowledge the striking relationship between these two prophetic books-at least, insofar as they both seemed to him to deal with the papacy and were both for "comfort in this last time.'' [source]

More musings on Kauffman's articles on Baptismal Regeneration in the Early Church

I linked to Timothy Kauffman's articles before, and now have some further thoughts.  This is not complete, and will probably be an ongoing increasingly larger project.  I mainly interact with Kauffman's analysis of Ignatius and Justin Martyr on the issue.

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/01/02/refutation-of-baptismal-regeneration-in-the-early-church/

Beggars All: 10 Years Old

I've taken some time off from blogging these last few months, but I'm still actively engaged in the topics covered here. I do the same thing with my other hobbies as well.  

Back during the blogger-craze days, I started this back in mid-December 2005 as a place where I could keep track of some of the subjects I was interested in.  My scope of interest is typically narrow: Reformation related research. Since December 2005, I've had over a million hits  (which isn't much in comparison to many other theological blogs). But, I've never really advertised, I don't sell anything, and I typically write what I do because they are my own selfish interests, not to gain readership.

I've appreciated meeting so many of you over the years, and I'm grateful that folks stop by here to read my posts.

James

Professor Rob Plummer's Daily Dose of Greek for Christmas - Matthew 1:18-22 (more to come)

Matthew 1:18

Matt 1.18 from Daily Dose of Greek on Vimeo.

Matthew 1:19

Matt 1.19 from Daily Dose of Greek on Vimeo.

Matthew 1:20

Matt 1.20 from Daily Dose of Greek on Vimeo.

Matthew 1:21

Matt 1.21 from Daily Dose of Greek on Vimeo.

Matthew 1:22

Matt 1.22 from Daily Dose of Greek on Vimeo.


Matthew 1:23 - the quote from Isaiah 7:14, I am assuming, will be on Monday. See Professor Plummer's Daily Dose of Greek web-site. Dr. Rob Plummber is professor of NT and Greek at the Southern Baptist Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky.

Luther on Repentance and the importance of the study of the original languages of Scripture

I missed this video by Dr. Rob Plummer (Professor of Greek and New Testament at Southern Seminary) on Oct. 31, 2015, but just saw it yesterday, and thought it worth posting.  It is a good reminder of the importance of the Greek word for repentance instead of the Latin, which was wrongly translated and contributed to the wrong understanding of repentance in the middle ages as "do penance", which grew into an emphasis and a focus on the external outward act or ritual that one had to do that the priest would assign, in order to gain satisfaction for full forgiveness.

Dr. Plummer goes over the first three of the 95 theses and how important that is, regarding true repentance.  True inward repentance results in fruit and good works and, as Luther says,  results in "various mortifications of the flesh".  (see Acts 26:20; Matthew 3:8; Luke 3:8; 2 Corinthians 7:7-10)

The "mortifications of the flesh" was a convicting comment, in light of the ongoing battles against "remaining sin" (James 1:19-21) like sinful anger, lust, gluttony, laziness, pride, complaining, worry, sinful fears, etc. (see Colossians 3:5; Romans 8:13; and 1 Corinthians 9:27)



Dr. Plummer's videos of "The Daily Dose of Greek" are very good for reminders; and helping those of us who had NT Greek in seminary, but have become rusty by not being in it so much every day.  I was keeping up with this in 1 John and Mark off and on pretty good until the last 3 months.  Life is like that; the Lord is good to give opportunities and grace, so we can start back again in our desires for good disciplines.

The quote that Dr. Plummer cites from Luther about the importance of the original languages - I remember reading that somewhere.  Dr. Plummer does not cite the source, but I found some references to it in John Piper's book, The Legacy of Sovereign Joy, (about Augustine, Luther, and Calvin), on page 97, (which I highly recommend), and he cites that as coming from W. Carlos Martyn, The Life and Times of Martin Luther, 1866, pp. 474-475.  (It is a slightly different translation from the one that Dr. Plummer cites.)  Maybe James Swan has cited this before or done an article on this before; I did not search a lot, but some, and could not find it here.

I found the 1866 W. Carlos Martyn book The Life and Times of Martin Luther, here.

A good Biblical explanation of John 3:5 and Titus 3:5 against Baptismal Regeneration

A Biblical explanation of John 3:5 and Titus 3:5 by Stephen C. Halbrook (see brief bio at bottom; and for more, under "about" at his blog.)  Note:  Some of the videos and links that he links to are no longer there.

I had linked to this blog article before, but after reading it again, I noticed afresh that the explanation of John 3:5 and Titus 3:5 is excellent and thorough and probably the best I have ever read.  

The article covers other verses that other groups use to defend baptismal regeneration, but I wanted to just focus on John 3:5 and Titus 3:5 here.  

These two verses are the last 2 verses analyzed, after he works through Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; Acts 22:16 and a combined analysis of Romans 6:3, Galatians 3:27 and Colossians 2:11-14. (I was surprised that I have not seen 1 Peter 3:21 in his list.) 

V. John 3:5 and Titus 3:5

^“Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’” (John 3:5)

^“he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,” (Titus 3:5)

1. Right off the bat, we most note that neither of these passages mention baptism in connection with “water” (in John 3:5) or “washing” (in Titus 3:5). Thus right away we must question the insistence of baptismal regenerationists that these texts are even about water baptism.

To insist that “water,” “washing,” and any related words must refer to physical water is arbitrary and absurd. Can we honestly say that the following texts refer to physical water?:

“I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.”
(1 Corinthians 3:6)

“These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved.”
(2 Peter 2:17)

“and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.” (Acts 15:9)

“Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you.Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.” (James 4:8)

“But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.” (1 John 1:7)

Regarding John 3:5 in particular, when one insists “water” self-evidently must refer to physical water, one faces a serious problem in the very next chapter:

“but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” (John 4:14)

Also consider another nearby chapter:

“On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, ‘If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, “Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.”’” (John 7:37-38)

Now, to consistently maintain his argument that the word “water” self-evidently refers to physical water, will one who holds to baptismal regeneration really argue that Jesus is saying salvation depends on drinking physical water, which will literally become a physical spring within one’s insides “welling up to eternal life,” or will literally become physical rivers flowing from one’s heart?

No, to avoid appearing foolish a baptismal regenerationist must equivocate and say, “well, the meaning of water must depend on the context.” Once he does this, he surrenders any hope that the context of John 3:5 demands a baptismal regeneration reading.

2. Let us focus specifically on Titus 3:5. Again, it reads:

^“he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,” (Titus 3:5)

Again, the only hope for a baptismal regenerationist reading is that “washing” refers to physical water—but nothing in the context demands this to be the case. Now here are two reasons within the text itself why a baptismal regeneration reading is impossible:

A. It says, ^“he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness ….”

The Bible considers water baptism a work, since:

(1) Romans 4:1-12 considers circumcision a work. If circumcision is a work, so is water baptism, since both are external marks of the church, with water baptism replacing circumcision in the New Covenant era.

(2) Consider also Matt. 3:14, 15:

“John would have prevented him, saying, ‘I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?’ But Jesus answered him, ‘Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.’ Then he consented.”

Jesus considered His water baptism as part of fulfilling all righteousness. Is not fulfilling all righteousness works? Compare “fulfill all righteousness” with “he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness,” in
Titus 3:5.

Thus, Titus 3:5 denies water baptism’s role in salvation even before the verse gets to “the washing of regeneration.”

B. Now, as far as “the washing of regeneration” is concerned, consider the following from Gordon Clark:

“if [water] baptism caused, or was, regeneration, the phrase would have been ‘the regeneration of washing.’ The actual phrase ‘the washing of regeneration’ indicates that regeneration washes, not that washing regenerates.” (Gordon Clark, Commentary on Titus,http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/192a-FalseShepherd.pdf )

In short, Titus 3:5 does not teach that external washing (from water baptism) causes regeneration, but that regeneration causes an internal washing: One is saved by “the [spiritual] washing of regeneration”—not by “the regeneration of washing [by water baptism].”  Gordon Clark writes, “The washing effected by regeneration is the renewal, that is, the renewing the Spirit does to us” (Ibid.).

3. Now we move on to John 3:5, which reads:

“Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’”

We have already demonstrated the absurdity of insisting this passage must speak of water baptism simply because it mentions “water.” We only need to go to the very next chapter (John 4:14) to show this.

There are several proposed interpretations of this text, and since the Bible uses the word “water” with more than one meaning, we have already cast in doubt the interpretation that says water baptism saves.

Moreover, it should be enough that from front to back the Bible teaches salvation by grace through faith and not by works (cf. Romans 4:1-12 and Ephesians 2:8, 9), so unless we want to say the Bible contradicts itself, we must rule out immediately any salvation by water baptism interpretation.

But beyond this, all we need to do is examine the surrounding context of John 3:5 to rule out such an interpretation.

A. Just three verses after John 3:5, we read:

“The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit” (Jn. 3:8).

On this passage Robert L. Reymond writes:

From the analogy which he drew between the wind’s natural operation and the Spirit’s regenerating work (John 3:8), Jesus taught, in addition to the facticity (“The wind blows”) and the efficacy (“and you hear the sound of it”) of the latter, both the sovereignty (“The wind blows wherever it pleases”) and the inscrutable mysteriousness (“you cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes”) of the Spirit’s regenerating work. (Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, p. 720).

This makes clear man cannot be born again because of his water baptism. He cannot have water sprinkled or poured upon himself, or immerse himself into water, and expect the Holy Spirit to save him as a consequence. The new birth is a sovereign act of God, on God’s timetable; the new birth cannot be programmed by water baptism.

Otherwise, instead of saying “The wind blows where it wishes,” it would say, “The wind blows where man wishes” (i.e., the Holy Spirit must save man out of compliance with man’s wish to be water-baptized). And, instead of saying “but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes,” it would say, “but you do know where it comes from or where it goes” (since in this scenario man would know exactly when he is regenerated: right after his water baptism).

B. Verses 6-8 rule out water baptism by emphasizing only the Holy Spirit. Sam Storms writes (this is not an endorsement of Storms himself, as we disagree with some of his theology).

Just as v. 5 is explanatory of v. 3, vv. 6-8 further develop the idea set forth in v. 5. But note: in vv. 6-8 “water” is conspicuously absent; there is mention only of the Spirit. Note again in v. 6 and v. 8b – why just “born of the Spirit” and not “born of water and the Spirit”? The answer is that “Spirit” is fundamental and “water”, whatever it means, must be subsumed under or defined as an elemental part of the operative work of the Spirit in regeneration. Had our Lord regarded “water” as an independent agency in regeneration and important in itself (i.e., as distinct from the agency of the Spirit), he surely would have mentioned it again and given it more prominence. Instead, he describes the birth “from above” as effected by the Spirit alone and wholly outside the sphere of the “flesh” (v. 6).
http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/john-35-part-i/

This is consistent with John 1, which likewise describes regeneration as an act solely by God, outside the realm of man and man’s works:

^“But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12, 13)

Here we have it: there is nothing man can do to cause the new birth. Hence he can neither “will” himself to be born again by getting water baptized, nor “will” himself to cause others to be born again by baptizing them in water.  Contrast the denial of man’s will in causing the new birth in John 1: 12, 13, with the affirmation of the Holy Spirit’s will in causing the new birth in John 3:8.

Moreover, John (the author) regularly describes the new birth as an act solely of God. Storms writes,

“John typically describes regeneration not in terms of repetition but as a divine birth, something that finds its source or origin in God. It is of God, being heavenly; not of man, who is earthly (cf. John 1:13; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1,4,18).”
http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/john-35-part-i/

C. One cannot make an inseparable relationship between water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism in John 3:5. Consider this: The only two possible water baptisms John 3:5 can refer to (if it does at all) are Christian baptism or John’s baptism. However,

1. It cannot refer to Christian baptism, since it wasn’t instituted until the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19). Sam Storms writes, “Would Jesus have rebuked Nicodemus for ignorance of an ordinance about which nothing had yet been said?” (John 3:10).http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/john-35-part-i/

2. It cannot refer to John’s baptism, since, as Sam Storms writes, “the text clearly coordinates water and Spirit whereas John uniformly contrasts his baptism, which is in water, with the baptism of the Messiah, which is in Spirit (cf. Mt. 3:11)” (Storms, Ibid.)

On the unitary nature of “water and Spirit” in John 3:5, Storms also writes:

The “begetting” or regeneration of which Jesus speaks is unitary, that is to say, there are not two births experienced, each with its respective agency, one by water and another by the Spirit, but one birth “by water and Spirit” in which the Spirit is the dominant factor. The text does not say “born of water and of Spirit” but “born of water and Spirit.” One preposition (ek) governs both nouns. It is a single “water and Spirit” birth.[2] Hence “water” is to be understood as coordinate with the “Spirit” rather than independent of or contrasted with it. (Storms, Ibid.)

And one cannot argue that those who received John’s baptism would in time inevitably receive Holy Spirit baptism. Prior to Holy Spirit baptism which commenced at Pentecost, it was believers—not those baptized by John—who were promised Holy Spirit baptism:

“On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” (John 7:37-39)

D. The Jesus in John 3:5 is the same Jesus who saved people without requiring them to be baptized in water. Consider the following:

“And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, ‘Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.’”(Matthew 9:2)

^“ ‘Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.’ And he said to her, ‘Your sins are forgiven.’ Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, ‘Who is this, who even forgives sins?’ And he said to the woman, ‘Your faith has saved you; go in peace.’” (Luke 7:47-50)

“And Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, ‘Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor. And if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold.’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.’” (Luke 19:8-10)

And so the question is, if Jesus teaches salvation by water baptism in John 3:5, is this a different Jesus in the passages above, since he saves these people without water baptism? Of course not. Jesus saves without water baptism, as the passages clearly indicate. And by implication, the passages rule out the view that John 3:5 teaches salvation by water baptism.

We must note how the Luke 19 passage above mentions, “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” Jesus did not baptize Zacchaeus in water. And yet Jesus saved him.

In light of this consider that John 4:2 says, ^“(although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples), …” One would think that if water baptism is necessary for salvation, then Jesus would have baptized those He saved during His earthly ministry.

But the way Jesus sought and saved men during his earthly ministry (as well as today) is through the internal cleansing of the word, not external cleansing of water baptism. Jesus says in John 15:3: ^“Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you”—He does not say, “Already you are clean because of water baptism.”

When we miss this important distinction between internal and external cleansing, we are no better than blind Pharisees. As Jesus scolded the Pharisees of His day:

^“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.” (Matthew 23:25, 26)

This post is a work in progress

About the Author:

My name is Steve C. Halbrook, and I am Reformed in my theology.  I regularly study theology, and have an M.A. in Government from Regent University.